In October 2012 Mormon Apostle Robert D. Hales spoke at the Mormon Church’s General Conference regarding what it means to be a Christian. He defined a Christian like this:
“A Christian has faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, that He is the literal Son of God, sent by His Father to suffer for our sins in the supreme act of love we know as the Atonement.
“A Christian believes that through the grace of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, we can repent, forgive others, keep the commandments, and inherit eternal life.
“The word Christian denotes taking upon us the name of Christ. We do this by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those holding His priesthood authority.
“A Christian knows that throughout the ages, God’s prophets have always testified of Jesus Christ. This same Jesus, accompanied by Heavenly Father, appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith in the year 1820 and restored the gospel and the organization of His original Church.
“Through the scriptures and the witness of Joseph Smith, we know that God, our Heavenly Father, has a glorified and perfected body of flesh and bone. Jesus Christ is His Only Begotten Son in the flesh. The Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit whose work is to testify of the Father and the Son. The Godhead is three separate and distinct beings, unified in purpose.
“With these doctrines as the foundation of our faith, can there be any doubt or disputation that we, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are Christian?” (Ensign, “Being a More Christian Christian,” November 2012, 90)
Indeed, if Mr. Hales’ definition of a Christian is used, not only are Mormons Christians, they are the only Christians. As Bill McKeever noted in the January-February 2013 issue of Mormonism Researched, summarized here,
- Mormonism teaches that Jesus is the literal offspring of Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother (while historic Christianity, though recognizing Jesus as the Son of God, has never believed Jesus is “literally” God’s Son);
- The Mormon Church claims to be the only church that holds God’s priesthood authority;
- Only Mormons believe Joseph Smith was visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ;
- Mormon doctrine dictates that God the Father has a body of flesh and bone (while historic Christianity worships a God of spirit);
- Mormonism uniquely expands the biblical revelation of Christ as God’s only begotten Son by adding the qualifier “in the flesh,” something historic Christianity has never affirmed;
- Mormonism recognizes three Gods in the Godhead while orthodox Christianity has always been committed to the doctrine of only One True God (in Trinity).
Therefore, on the face of it, according to Mr. Hales definition only Mormons are Christians. Anyone who believes in the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, or chooses baptism in a different church, or dismisses Joseph Smith’s First Vision (etc.) is not a Christian.
Some have noted that this exclusionary list, presented by a Mormon Apostle, in an official Church setting, is a bit hypocritical in light of the usual insistence of Mormons and the Mormon Church alike that “Christian” must be very broadly defined: “Anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Redeemer of the world is a Christian, regardless of differences in theology.”
Perhaps the Mormon Church has recognized that Mr. Hales’ definition of a Christian tends to “dismiss or diminish the validity of other people’s religious experiences,” something the Church, on its website, claims it does not do. In the March 2013 issue of the Ensign, readers are encouraged to “review the October 2012 general conference,” specifically noting Mr. Hales’ address discussing, “What does it mean to be a Christian?” An edited quote from Mr. Hales’ talk is provided for Ensign readers:
- A Christian has faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. …
- A Christian believes that through the grace of God … we can repent, forgive others, keep the commandments, and inherit eternal life.
- The word Christian denotes taking upon us the name of Christ. We do this by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.
- A Christian knows that … God’s prophets have always testified of Jesus Christ. (Ensign, “October Conference Notebook,” March 2013, 9. Ellipses retained from the source cited.)
This edited list has lost every Mormon distinctive that is found in Mr. Hales’ original: No mention of Jesus being the “literal” Son of God; no mention of priesthood authority; no mention of Joseph Smith’s First Vision; no mention of a Father God of flesh and bone; no mention of Jesus being the only begotten “in the flesh”; no mention of the Godhead being comprised of three Gods.
The Mormon Church seems happy to recognize non-Mormons as Christian per the broader, more inclusive definition found online and in the March Ensign; but to be a Christian Christian – well, that appears to be another story altogether.
This is a CLASSIC straw-man false dichotomy. Notice that FOF has to put the word pseudo or “false” in front of the word intellect to try and denigrate the word itself! That is how fearful Mormons are of studying something out in their minds (the very thing that Jo said they should do) weighing it, and THEN asking God about it. So Mormon critics tell Mormons to use a FALSE intellect to evaluate the claims and life of Jo Smith! Here is untruth at it’s best folks. This is the kind of thing that cult leaders love to do. Make honest research and men’s ability to determine the truth a bad thing. No critic I know asks more than to read the historical history of the church with anything but an open mind. But that is too simple for those trapped in the Bubble of denial.
And what approach would that be, FOF? Lay it out in detail. You can’t. This is just blather. The Bible is set in reality. Not one part of the Book of Mormon has been verified to be real except the parts plagiarized from the Bible.
FoF,
“Jaxi- show me the people that have had a “sincere, deep, active” habit of reading the Book of Mormon when they left the church.”
I think I put myself on that list. If you need to tell yourself that all the people that leave weren’t sincere, deep, active, habitual Book of Mormon readers than you are free to keep your delusion.
“If we wish to be accept of the Lord, we need to accept the servants that He sends us. Would you disagree?”
Yes, but I am not to accept any Jo-shmo who claims he talked to God.
“If the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, our salvation depends upon our accepting it.”
I guess you could say that about the Quran too. God has given me no reason to believe Joseph Smith, so I feel pretty safe in my decision. The Bible also warns very strongly about following false prophets. I am much more worried about that because I have been given many reasons to conclude Joseph Smith was a false prophet. You may be trying to say that my salvation is at risk if I don’t accept the Book of Mormon. I would say you are taking a risk with your salvation through following a false prophet. When I don’t accept the Book of Mormon, I am following the word of God in watching for “other gospels”. I would not put my salvation or the salvation of my children at risk if I wasn’t sure it didn’t come from God.
“Those who argue that it is merely a “bait and switch” trick know very little about the book and the role it plays.”
I know the role you claim it plays. I know that the LDS Church convinces members that if they believe that the Book of Mormon is true that, Joseph Smith must have been a prophet, and all of his successors, so everything else must come from God as well. (Granted there is some confusion on who exactly was his successor). The thinking is if we can get you to believe this is true than so is that. It is a display of terrible critical thinking skills. It is a tactic that got many to go along with polygamy even though the whole idea sickened many. It’s manipulative.
“But when it comes to analyzing the Bible, the religious critics of the Book of Mormon take a very, very different approach. They employ two very different sets of standards in considering the two books. And it is obvious. I have a difficult time understanding how these folks can live with such inconsistency and incongruence.”
Who are these critics, or do you lump all critics together? What are the two different standards? This is a big statement in which you give no support. I am sure that there are people who are inconsistent and incongruent. I don’t feel that I have been that way in my own research. I don’t think it would be fair to lump all religious critics into one category as having different standards in analysis. I think I was overly fair to the Book of Mormon. I gave Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon the benefit of the doubt way more than I would for any other thing I would research. Honestly, if I hadn’t been born into it I would have given it about as much thought as I have regarding Islam, Kaballah, or Jehovah Witness’.
@fof
That book by van dam sounds interesting. I’ll check it out! Also, most people know quite well all the manners and ways in which Joseph translated the Book of Mormon. The use of both the UT and the seer stone is common knowledge as are all the quotes from those describing the process.
FoF,
Your Church has said The BoM is the Most correct book. Yet in it’s very short History it has had over 4,000 changes. And those changes are not noted as LDS claim they are.
Back when I started sharing with LDS around 15 plus years ago, People did not own computers and their was in Internet and web searching, I had as well as others had to obtain actual books and open them up and show LDS and say, here are some problems. Back then every single LDS I ever spoke to claimed, Their are ZERO changes in the BoM, and claimed these so called 4,000 changes are flat out lies.
Now they openly admit they are their and make excuses for them, It was man who caused these problems. So your simply sticking you head in the sand to think these things never happended.
Then when you say, or LDS say, the BoM is the cheif cornerstone, I rather Trust Jesus and Him saying, He is the Stone the Builders Rejected and that once the foundation is laid, No man can build upon that foundation a new one. The BoM is a fake and new foundation.
Then as I said before, Romove all word for word quotes and verses from the BoM that are Bible verses and quotes, then with what is left, show me how I can be saved according to the BoM, Cannot be done.
Then as far as changes go, Your Prophets once claimed, Blacks will turn WHITE, Since that Failed, it needed to be changed to Blacks will become pure. I have a copy of the BoM THAT STATES blacks will be made white, and showed it some some MM that came to my house, Their copy said, Pure.
Now one LDS on this site excuses this issue by saying, it’s just an update of the language. Really? The BoM has not been around that long, and we need an update of the Langauge?
Grindael,
Mine was not a general dismissal of all intellectual analysis of the data and information relating to the restoration. The “pseudo-intellectual” refers to the superficial, extremely biased analysis that applies double standards and makes the most negative assumptions at every turn in the conclusion algorithm. It is the pretense of intellectual scholarship so common among the critics that I call “pseudo-intellectual” arguments (it also happens among defenders too). I have spent thousands of hours researching the intellectual arguments- both pro and con- and believe it is of great importance and benefit- I would never dismiss intellectual analysis of the issues relating to the Book of Mormon or anything else. Please don’t try to put words in my mouth.
I am not “fearful” at all of studying all information possible. I find that 99.9% of the critics limit the amount of information in their criticisms, ignoring a great deal of scholarship that has been done and that is readily available. They repeat the same talking points over and over. And I think that because they think that is effective, they continue doing it. Almost all the critics I dialogue with remain in a relatively superficial depth of the arguments. They often cannot even state what the strongest positions are defending the Book of Mormon. And this is why Owen and Moss state that evangelical critics of the church are “losing the battle and not knowing it.”
As to you second question- about atheists and religious critics of the Book of Mormon following the very same “playbook,” just take a look at the arguments of Richard Dawkins against the Bible. If you pay attention and note the sequence and rationale of his points, they are precisely the same as those employed by non-LDS Christians to dismiss the Book of Mormon. They even use the same phrases and language many times. It is a striking reality, and I have wondered why more of our critics do not recognize or wonder about this.
Johnny Boy,
If “the use of both the UT and the seer stone is common knowledge as are all the quotes from those describing the process” as you claim, why the criticism and hang up about the church somehow being dishonest in portraying Joseph looking through the Urim and Thummim? That is what the primary scribe- Oliver- described. I don’t think there is any denial of Joseph using the seer stone. The bottom line is that we don’t know how much of each method was employed. But Oliver described the Urim and Thummim-process as the method of translation. It always seems to be a curious criticism to me.
Jaxi- it all comes down to the fundamental principle of determining what is truth. I don’t remember you stating that you were actively, intensely reading the Book of Mormon on a daily basis when you decided to leave the church. Is that what you are claiming now?
One of the most common double standards employed by critics of the Book of Mormon is to ridicule the idea of personal revelation regarding the Book of Mormon while accepting the Bible on the other hand without acknowledging the means by which they know the Bible is true. Too many will simply say the Bible is the word of God- of course it is true. And by so doing, they are simply employing circular logic and a double standard. The best question to demonstrate this is “how do you know the Bible is true?” Most don’t like that question. But it is important in demonstrating the double standard at work.
FoF said
How come I believe the Bible? Lets see, all the overwhelming evidence for it.
Way back in the OT the nation of Israel was created, then after they lost their homeland and were with out a nation they were broken up and scattered all over the world. Any and all nations that this ever happened to ceased to exist after just a few hundred years, But God procted His people as He said He would. Then low and behold, Isreal Gets their home land back and Jews from all over the world came back into the land on May 14th 1948.
Then as the Bible says, The nation of Isreal will be a cup of trembling to the entire world, How is it that a nation that is land locked and about the size of New Jersey makes the news daily? The whole world sits quilty by as they get attacked, yet once they fight back, then the whole world freaks out and blames them. Funny how the Bible said this would happen.
How come they are always being attacked and their enemies are vocal about wanting to wipe them off the face of the earth? There really is no reason other than the Bible said it would happen.
Lets see, their are rougly 1800 prophecys in the Bible, all but less than 100 are fufilled with great accuracy and in great detail. This is just a few reasons. Can you use the BoM and show this kind of evidence?
I’ll answer the question of how I know the Bible is true:
History backs it up, and if it can be true as to history, then I believe it can be true on spiritual matters. The same cannot be said for the BoM. Someone else has said it here– we are to look for the word of God everywhere, but that does not mean we accept every claim to be of God as true. Stated another way, just because we feel something does not mean the feeling reflects reality.
Now, when I read your posts I see glaring absence of response to many issues brought forth. I don’t expect you to be answer each and everyone, but the one’s you choose to gloss over are interesting. Its as if you avoid certain topics and that you stay where you are comfortable. I could be wrong, but this is indeed an observation. (I am not just talking about my comments, either.)
The Mormon church claims to be the only true church of Jesus , all other churches are false .
That would make Mormons to be the only true christians , and all others who believe in
Jesus to be false christians , or how about ” pseudo christians ” ? If this is what
Mormon leaders believe about non-Mormons why don’t they express this more in public
these days ?
FoF,
“Is that what you are claiming now?”
This isn’t a new claim. On other topics I have even shared how involved I was in all areas of LDS Church activity that I was allowed to be involved in. This included my LDS scripture study. If you scroll ahead you will see that I shared that I had been intensely reading and praying and highlighting over a copy of the Book of Mormon to give to a friend for months to bring her to the LDS Church only a month before I decided I didn’t believe. You don’t have to believe me. I’m sure you won’t. I know that it doesn’t fit into your world view. In an LDS person’s mind, God would of course reveal the book of Mormon as true if they were being sincere. How could he not? He promised he would in Moroni 10. If you were actively searching, reading, and praying than there is no way you wouldn’t know it was true. Right? The problem is very sincere and committed people do read and study the Book of Mormon and conclude that it is not from God. So if you are going to discount what Tom, johnnyboy, and I said, than I am seeing why you claim to know that hundreds of people leave that aren’t sincere, habitual Book of Mormon studiers. You don’t believe anybody.
How do I know that Bible’s true? I don’t want to get into this again because I just had big discussion with someone on this site a couple months ago about it. To put it in summary, the Bible makes prophesies that came true. Old Testament prophets prophesied of Christ. Christ quoted from the Old Testament prophets. They are linked. The apostles are linked to Christ because he chose them. I don’t take just Paul’s word for it that he had a vision. I trust Christ, so I trust Peter, and Peter trusted Paul. Everybody is linked. It would be difficult to separate anyone out. If I deny OT prophets I deny Christ. If I deny the apostles, I deny Christ. Joseph Smith has no connection. There is no prophesy of him or “the Restoration.” He connected himself through claims, which cannot be substantiated except through “a witness,” which not everybody gets. The big question I had to ask myself is why would God the Father work so hard to give prophesy of His Son, but give absolutely no preparation for Joseph Smith, who by the way (in LDS standards), I have to accept in order to be with God?
I didn’t put words in your mouth. You used the word pseudo, which means false. Now, because I called you out on it, you are changing your tune. This is a typical Mormon tactic. We are all familiar with it here. But you have rejected them. You said so. Saying that 99.9% of critics limit information is just a lie. The facts speak for themselves. What Mormons want, is for every critic to take the time to dismantle their “scholars” lame arguments each time they make a point. It is easy to do, but tedious. The same talking points? History is history. The problem is, Mormon scholars have not in any way done a good job of refuting the inherent problems in Mormon History. Take for example, Adam God. I get the same reaction as yours from almost every Mormon precisely because they can’t answer it. Yet, Matthew Brown in 2009 did a paper on it and it was full of flat out lies, omissions and deceit.
Paul Owen said,
This is precisely what Mormons are doing with the Owen/Mosser quotes to all Evangelicals. Stop doing it. Even they acknowledge (as I have) your poor reading skills.
We are not losing the battle to educate Mormons. What Owen & Moss were complaining about was that some Evangelicals don’t read enough of the LDS “scholars” arguments and therefore don’t counter them well. They have their opinion, and Mormons continue to use that quote when it really doesn’t apply to the majority of critics. Mormonthink does this. IRR does this. The Tanners do this. I do this. I can go on and on. You are simply fooling yourself, and I think you are very scared. Your lack of engagement on historical issues proves it. For example, I’m going to do this with the Urim and Thummim. Let’s see if you can back up what you say about it.
Funny you say that the critics you talk to have superficial arguments? You can’t rebut any of my historical arguments. You haven’t even tried. You give blanket statements and dismiss out of hand. This shows that you don’t have answers, only vague accusations of superficiality so that you can get out of discussing them. How about those Danites? Hmmmm?
You have to be more specific about your accusations that we use the same playbook as atheists. In what way? How do we do this? Please give detailed examples (if you can, but I doubt it).
RickB,
No offense intended, but in my opinion, that is a very superficial and shallow reason for believing the Bible is true. I think there are far greater reasons to believe it. The Book of Mormon is absolutely as powerful in predicting important things that have happened in the world since it was published.
MJP- If you are claiming that the Bible is corroborated by outside history, you must be only listening to those people who are trying to build a case for the Bible. There are a lot of big-time historians and scholars who have argued just the opposite- that the Bible is very poorly supported by the historical record. Again- big topic. But it sounds like you may not be hearing the full perspective of scholars on the topic.
And if you haven’t noticed, there are not many LDS posting here. And there are a lot of critics. And to tell you the truth, I don’t respond too often to some people because of their tone and axe. But there really isn’t any topic that I avoid intentionally.
Jaxi- You are demonstrating circular logic. The Bible is true because Jesus says it is? Then how do you know Jesus is who you think He was? At some point, you have to have a fundamental reason for your religious beliefs.
Thanks.
FoF,
That is not what I said at all. I am saying that the Old Testament points to who Christ is. Christ fulfilled those prophesies. You totally took the Old Testament out of the equation.
FoF you said this to Jaxi
“Jaxi- You are demonstrating circular logic. The Bible is true because Jesus says it is?”
Strange isn’t it, when I have accused Mormons in here of using circular logic, e.g. attempting to prove that Joseph Smith was a prophet by quoting from the things he wrote about himself I was told that I was being ridiculous or words to that effect. However that may be I’m much more inclined to believe what Christ said than to trust the words of a convicted con-man who invented his own religion.
FoF,
If you want to get to heart of why I believe in Christianity it is because it provides the best explanation for why I am the way that I am and why I am here. I am someone who desires to be good and feels bad when I am selfish and angry. There is this standard that I am constantly trying to live up to and I feel guilty when I can’t achieve it. I wonder why anything at all exists. I wonder why I love and why I can see beauty. I feel that there is more to my life and the living world and it wasn’t just a freak accident. I feel this love that is in me and that is in creation. I feel that there is a God. I can’t prove it.
So I have to ask myself what I believe about God. Do I believe in a loving God? I do because I believe for no other reason than that morality exists, that if there is a God He has got to be the best, the greatest. He has got to be what I am aspiring to be. I see that in Christ. But I am flawed, tremendously. As much as I try to fix it, I can’t get there on my own. My very nature is flawed and I know it. I believe the Christian story. I believe there is a God, I believe God is Christ, and that He loves me and will fix me.
Once I have established that I believe in God, and that Christ is the Word, than I have to believe what He says. And watching for false prophets is part of that. Mormonism doesn’t fit in the equation. Christ does not give me any reason to expect or accept Joseph Smith. And if I believe God would work so hard in prophesying of Christ, I would have to believe that He would give me something to believe in Joseph Smith. It is not Christianity’s job to prove itself to Mormonism. Mormonism came after. It’s Mormonism’s job to prove itself to Christianity. Mormonism does a poor job on all accounts, historically, scripturally, and for many spiritually.
@fof
Don’t give me the same tired old lines the church does. You know as well as I do that the church isn’t forthcoming about its history. Just because people discover it and know about it doesn’t mean the church is open about it. That’s a complete crock. I guarantee 80-90% of my ward has no idea of half the stuff the critics on here do. And that’s wrong. It’s just wrong.
FoF said
No Offense FoF but you really need to stop giving everyone your Opinions? Thats all you LDS ever do is give your opinions, How about give us some solid facts. Also I did not sit here and write every single reason I believe the Bible is true, I only stated a couple of reasons.
How about you bring for evidence for the BoM, and dont give your opinions, give provable facts that can be backed up and supported. As far as Israel goes, I have been over their for 14 days, I have evidence and we can watch it on the news. Can you prove you have been to the BoM lands? You can claim you went to some land that supposedly BoM land, but thats again, Only your opinion, you cannot prove it, So put your money where your mouth is and give us this evidence.
FoF, MJP said to you
MJP has said what I have been saying for years, only not as blunt as I say it. I was just talking to Rikki via email and made the comment to Him, Notice the questions Mormons avoid and the ones they answer. I told him, I have had Christians on this blog get mad at me and tell me to give it a rest when I point out, Over, and Over And over, questions that I ask are being avoided.
I understand not everyone can and will get and answer, but also I notice I ask questions many times before anyone else. So if were being “Fair” and say, first come, first served, I notice my questions get avoided. Take it how ever you want FoF, but it’s true, LDS here do dodge serious questions and only reply to simple things like, what is your name, how old are you, are you a man or a women. Stuff like that. Dont agree, prove me wrong and let MJP POINT out questions he/she thinks LDS avoid. Then answer them and I will see you are not one to dodge.
Mike,
“The Mormon church claims to be the only true church of Jesus , all other churches are false .
That would make Mormons to be the only true christians , and all others who believe in
Jesus to be false christians , or how about ” pseudo christians ” ? If this is what
Mormon leaders believe about non-Mormons why don’t they express this more in public
these days ?”
This is true. I learned this growing up and believed it for 37 years. I have a sister in law who is Catholic and everytime we would go to her kid’s baptisms or whatever, my mom would come out and say ” I just didn’t feel the spirit in there.” My cousin’s funeral was in a Christian church and mom leaned over to me and said ” I just don’t feel the spirit here.” It’s like the “spirit” doesn’t dwell in other Christian churches because only the LDS churches are truly Christian.
I was taught that the LDS are THE true Christians. Even other Mormon sects were considered apostate and not true Christians. Mormons can say what they want about this talk by Robert Hales but I picked up on what he was saying right away, before I even finished it. I know what I would have been thinking if I were still LDS.
It would be nice if today’s LDS leadership would actually stand up and say what is official and what they believe. Funny how the first 6 or 8 prophets did just that and yet the last several are extremely quiet and if asked about something, like say the blacks, golly gee, they just don’t know where that doctrine came from.
What’s interesting and predictable is FoF throwing the Bible under the bus to prove the BoM is true. I have seen this from just about every Mormon who has posted here the past 2 years. Aren’t Mormons supposed to believe in the Bible as well? Why don’t they defend it as they do the BoM? They all tend to use Atheists in their arguments against the Bible as well. That alone speaks volumes.
FOF
This is probably not a proper place for philosophy but here goes
This quote pretty much explains the reason I believe the Bible.
quote:
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
end quote: C. S. Lewis
I can know things with certainty only because the Triune God reveals them to me.
1)Only a God who is omniscient and always existed as God could know things with certainty. (Isa 46:10)
2)Only a God that took on a human nature could communicate his knowledge to humans infallibly. (John 1:18)
3) Only a God that is a Spirit that I can receive while at the same time remaining fully the one true God can allow me to understand these things (1st cor 2:11)
The only scripture where I find a God like this is the Bible
The god of Mormonism if he existed would fail at every test.
hope that helps
peace
Kate, you’re right about Mormon leadership of the past compared to those in the last few decades ,
especially when it comes to how they described non Mormons who believe in Jesus . But then
those in past never a PR dept like the Church does now to craft its image .
As far as how some Mormons seem so quick to as you say , “throw the Bible under the bus ” ,
goes , I think that is uncalled for . Knowledgeable Mormons know they can stand on the New
Testament account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection . So then what does the New Testament
reveal about Jesus ? He lived a perfect live , He died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins,
He rose from the dead to prove who He was , and He invites all sinners to Come to Him to receive
complete pardon and eternal life . This was the message that Jesus’ apostles preached in their
journeys , people embraced their message ( the gospel) and received the benefits —complete
forgiveness , a personal relationship with their Savior , and reconciliation with God and eternal
life with Him in heaven with the fullness of blessings therein. That very same gospel , when
embraced, delivers the same results today —-Rom 1:16 ; Heb 7:25 .
Kate , it’s like you always say , it’s all about Jesus !
@Faithoffathers
“one of the most common double standards employed by critics of the Book of Mormon is to ridicule the idea of personal revelation regarding the Book of Mormon while accepting the Bible on the other hand without acknowledging the means by which they know the Bible is true. Too many will simply say the Bible is the word of God- of course it is true. And by so doing, they are simply employing circular logic and a double standard.
Would you be able to specify what this double standard is? As far as ascertaining whether the Bible is true, through textual (lower) criticism, we can know from thousands of manuscripts that the Bible has been:
1. Used in history over different continents, languages, cultures, races
2. Translated into different languages by different religious groups
3. Consistent in content/meaning over 2000-4000 years
Without textual criticism or the existence of the original autographs, we simply can determine that the Bible is false. But since we do have textual criticism, we can know that it was accepted by the early church, carried over different languages, cultures, races and religious groups despite the original autographs being indisposed. Therefore, we know that the Bible was used by the early church as scripture.
As far as the Book of Mormon is concerned, since we do not have a single copy of a manuscript, translation or plate that predates Joseph Smith’s ‘translation’, we can simply use lower criticism as our test. That determines that the Book of Mormon as Scripture didn’t exist, nor was it used in the early Church.
🙂
FOF,
OH BOY, PERSONAL REVELATION!!
Now this is one of my favorite things whether it be used by Christians, Mormons, or someone of any other religion. Every group, FOF, has personal revelation. Mormons love to use the account of Peter confessing to Jesus that He, Jesus, is the Messiah. Jesus says that the Father in Heaven revealed this to Peter.
So Mormons hop on this and say, “ME TOO, ME TOO!”
Let me clue you in. It’s not IF there is something called personal revelation, but it’s IF someone is actually receiving it and from who. An important Gift of the Holy Spirit is called discernment. It’s the ability to identify what spirit entity is operating in any particular situation.
I have no doubt that there is a spirit entity roaming about the spirit world who goes by the name of Mormon or Moroni. All I have to know is who any believer in any religion acknowledges as their god or spirit guide and I can tell you where they are getting their thrills, chills and spiritual information.
Now to shift gears slightly, there’s a certain Christian sect who believe in receiving a “Rhema” or a word from the Lord. It’s not unusual for some Christians to say they have received a word from the Lord or that the Lord told them this or that. Most of the time this is harmless but quite often, over done.
So how do you know if something is really from God? In the case of Mormonism it is pretty easy to dismiss its claims. The reason is that Mormonism is completely inconsistent with what the Bible tells us. There’s a reason why Mormons have to claim that the Biblical text is corrupt and cannot be trusted. If the Bible can be dismissed as authoritative than the “prophet” has free reign to say or do whatever he wants.
Joseph Smith was also a practitioner of folk magic. He used seer stones to garner information. It’s called scrying and is forbidden by the Bible. No wonder Mormons want to dismiss the Bible. No telling what Joe was tapping into out there in the spirit world.
Finally Mormonism is a mess of “doesn’t count”, “it’s folk doctrine”, and “it’s just his opinion”. It would seem then that Mormonism is not consistent with the Bible but even Mormons have considerable doubts as to what their prophets have taught and the people of that era believed, was really hot off the press direct from the Mormon god.
If a person doesn’t have God right and if they dismiss the Bible as reliable and if their described “god” isn’t who the Bible tells us He is, then their personal revelation is nothing more than personal entertainment, unreliable and probably spiritually dangerous.
One of my favorite Mormon tricks is to tell someone to pray and read the BoM and that it will be revealed to them that it is true. So the person prays about it, reads it and gets zero testimony that it’s true. So the Mormon will say that the person has to do it again. So the person does it again and again, no testimony. Now is when things get interesting and personal. The BoM reader is told that they need to be humble and sincere and then they will get the confirmation. So it’s again, back to the drawing board and no testimony.
For the Mormon, the only acceptable answer is that the BoM is true. That’s it! No other result is acceptable. It’s a game and the responsibility for getting the burning in the bosom response is on the reader.
All I need to know is who is the god I’m praying to for this response. To Mormons seriously think I’d pray to the Mormon god for an answer to anything? This Mormon god who is just one of millions and billions of gods who were once sinful men who, by following the Mormon program became a god, is who I should pray to.
I don’t think so!
I’m not interested in personal revelation from the spirit entity who guides the Mormon religion.
Here is a question for all LDS?
I wont name every single book or author, just these two. Have you ever heard of Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell?
Both of these guys at one time were Atheists and set out to prove the Bible wrong. Lee was a very Respectable Journalist and Josh I believe was a laywer. They sought to prove the bible was false, but the evidence was so over whelming they became Believers in Jesus.
So, can LDS name some people who were hard core atheists, they set out to prove the Book Of Mormon false, but after reading the BoM and studying all the evidence, they found it was just so over whelming they became Mormons?
Now if you say yes, remember, I’m asking for atheists who did this, Not people who were Christians that converted, or people who already believed and wanted to believe. Then tell me the names of their books and maybe even provide a recap of the evidence they found. I really want to here this.
If this never happended, but it has in Christianty and with the Bible, then it makes one wonder.
Not exploring enough? Are you kidding me? First, I don’t think you know much about the “process” or Mormon history. Jo used the same “process” with the “spectacles” as he did with the peep-stone. He placed them both into a hat to shut out the light. So, I really don’t know what point you are trying to make with this. But let’s just see if he used the “spectacles” for the entire process, as you are claiming here. (Or that it is biased & partisan to claim that he did not).
I think there is enough evidence to prove that he did not, that he only used them (the spectacles – not the Biblical Urim and Thummim) for a short time and then used the peep-stone for the rest of the translation. That is what Emma Smith said. That is what many others said. And they were all there. Remember, Jo himself called Oliver Cowdery a liar.
Jo translated part of the Book in Harmony, then moved into the house of David Whitmer to finish the translation. (May 1829) There were lots of people there, not just Oliver and Jo. And since Jo wasn’t using the plates then (he hid them) he did what he did openly, in front of anyone who was there. As per Royal Skousen,
Second, let’s explore further the statements about how Jo translated the Book of Mormon. There are quite a few. These are the statements that the critics use. Where do they come from? For the most part, from Mormon sources. And what comes from anyone else is CONFIRMED by the Mormon sources.
To say that Jo translated the entire book with the “spectacles” can’t be borne out by the evidence, so it’s not historically accurate. One of the earliest accounts about the method of translation was given to John A. Clark by Martin Harris who visited him in 1828:
So, the non Mormon source shows that Jo claimed to use the “spectacles” early on in the translation. But since he kept up a curtain, no one really knows if he did, do they? He could have been using his peepstone then for all we know. In September of 1829 Harris gave an interview to the Rochester Gem:
Jo himself gave this account in 1832:
Jo only says here that he got the plates back, but doesn’t mention the “spectacles”. But he also did not finish this account. Exploring farther, we find this from the Historical Record of the Church:
This is confirmed by Emma Smith:
This is confirmed by William McLellin.
So we have Oliver’s widow also confirming the peepstone method. She also stated that she had never seen a curtain raised between Smith and Cowdery or her brothers while translation took place in the Whitmer home.
Confirmed by Isaac Hale:
Confirmed by Emma’s brother in law:
Confirmed by Martin Harris:
At that time, Jo had the “spectacles”, but didn’t like using them, he felt more comfortable with his “peepstone”.
Confirmed by David Whitmer:
The peepstone was also called the urim and thummim. Joseph Knight wrote,
In 1834 Oliver Cowdery (aided by Joseph Smith) wrote what Oliver described as “a full history of the rise of the church of the Latter Day Saints” which was published in the Messenger and Advocate. He said,
It is obvious that Cowdery was only using this term as a literary device. His own wife stated that Jo translated by means of his peepstone after he lost the 116 pages. So do all the other witnesses that were there at the time.
But we know that Jo’s peepstone was called a “urim and thummim”, and so in the light of all the evidence, Cowdery’s 1834 account can’t be used to state that Jo translated the entire Book of Mormon with the “spectacles”. One reason for this was (supposedly) because they were so big that you could not look through both stones at the same time. This has been stated by William Smith and others.
B. H. Roberts wrote that the,
So, here we have B.H. Roberts saying the same thing. Is he a very biased, partisan critic?. Even newspaper reports of the time have Jo translating by means of “stone in hat”:
By the way, the earliest account of those “spectacles” or the peepstone for that matter, being called the “urim & thummim” was given in a newspaper interview in 1832 by Samuel H. Smith & Orson Hyde. The term urim & thummim in connection with these items could have come from W. W. Phelps, but it was used (as my own research has borne out) earlier than what most of the critics and Mormon “scholars” say, in 1833.
It would have been easy for Jo to make those spectacles. Simply twist some wire and put two stones in it. I will address the claims about the Urim and Thummim, and how Van Dam’s conjectures are nothing more than speculation (relying on very late sources) in a subsequent post. I have read C. Van Dam’s book. I hope you have.
FoF,
You said, “No offense intended, but in my opinion, that is a very superficial and shallow reason for believing the Bible is true. I think there are far greater reasons to believe it. The Book of Mormon is absolutely as powerful in predicting important things that have happened in the world since it was published.”
Read this: http://mormonthink.com/Book_of_Mormon_Problems.pdf
Then, remember that not one single vestige of any BoM civilization has been pinpointed in either time or space after their departure from the Old World.
FoF said
I was thinking more about this. I find it sad that in the eyes of FoF he feels these are very superficial and shallow reasons, since LDS claim the Bible is not translated correctly, and they dont say, pray about the Bible, they say, pray about the BoM.
I also did not see you give reasons why you trust the Bible, I only see LDS claiming why they dont trust the Bible and thats why we need the BoM. So dont tell me my reasons are lame when you did not provide any. And like it or Not, the Jews are back in their land and short of God doing this and the Bible being true, you cannot explain it away.
Old Man,
I agree that it would be circular reasoning to conclude that Joseph Smith was a prophet entirely upon the things he had written about himself being a prophet. I have never used that as evidence. Not sure why you are bringing that up. I was directly responding to the circular reasoning of Jaxi.
grindael- you consistently misrepresent my words, and I have little interest in exchange with people who do that. I understand Moss and Owen’s words. I just read their article again last week. I understand their argument and the statement I quoted.
And if we give you your claim for the sake of argument about Joseph using the seer stone, it doesn’t change a thing about the consistency with what we know about the ancient Urim and Thummim according to Van Dam. And as far as the church misrepresenting the process, who was the scribe for the majority of the translation? What did he describe? Thanks.
Jaxi- I appreciate your perspective. But it doesn’t seem apparent from what you provide in your testimony why you would dismiss the Book of Mormon while accepting the Bible.
Kate- your make the statement that is made every single time I call out critics for their double standard- I am “throwing the Bible under the bus.” This is jumping back and forth between physical evidences and spiritual testimony. You must feel that calling me out for “throwing the Bible under the bus” is a trump card. But it is a spiritual claim. It is an accusation of blaspheme. I could counter by simply saying you are throwing the Book of Mormon under the bus. How does that work?
Neither will the attempt to dodge my point by saying I am blaspheming against the Bible. The critics here apply two very different standards for the two different books. I have said nothing that is not true about the Bible. If you guys claim that your basis for believing the Bible is the historical corroboration or archaeology, etc., you must then explain why you can dismiss the expert opinions on the topic who disagree with you. You are simply picking those statements and evidences that come from believers in the book and dismissing the unbelieving opinions. Are you OK if I do that with the Book of Mormon? Not likely.
RickB- why not just give me an example of a question that I consistently dodge?
Fifth monarchy man- That is an interesting reason for believing the Bible. In my experience, the Book of Mormon describes and predicts human nature far better than any other book in the world. Why dismiss it?
RikkiJ- your 3 reasons for believing the Bible are all different versions of the idea that the book is very old. In 2,000 years, should people accept the Book of Mormon because it is old?
Mistaken Testimony- you seem to be changing the subject. The point to which I responded was about prophetic power. And the Book of Mormon has a very good track record. By the way- your last statement is just uninformed or misleading.
RickB- I discovered the truthfulness of the Bible the same way I did the Book of Mormon- immersing myself in it and prayerfully reading it and trying to apply its teachings.
If a person discovers that the Book of Mormon is true, he knows many things- including that the Bible is true, God lives, Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, the gospel has been restored to prepare for the second coming of Christ, etc.
And the Book of Mormon also predicted that Israel would be restored. It also predicted some amazing things about America that have come true and are coming true. Why dismiss it?
And the article of faith- bible translation issue- has a great deal to do with the fact that we cannot describe the process by which the Bible was transmitted through time with precision or completeness- nobody can. We don’t know who did the transmitting. We can do that with the Book of Mormon. That is a very significant difference.
Oh FOF, I threw the BoM under the bus, out the window and off the roof years ago. There is absolutely no reason to believe in it. There are no writings to compare it to, no archeological evidence, only the word of a con man and a few men who later stated they didn’t actually see the plates with their physical eyes only their “spiritual” eyes. What a crock. You aren’t the first Mormon who has attacked the Bible in defence of the BoM and I doubt you will be the last. I believe in the Bible because I can see the fingerprint of God all over it. That takes a deeper study, for starters you should check out Learn The Bible in 24 hours by Chuck Missler, very interesting stuff.
“You must feel that calling me out for “throwing the Bible under the bus” is a trump card.”
Not at all, it’s an observation I’ve made about Mormons who post here. All of you have done this. Is this something taught to you by your church? I doubt you all know each other personally, so why is it that you all do it? You all use Atheists in your argument as well. We have writings to compare the Bible to. where’s the gold plates? Oh yeah, an Angel took them, how convenient. It’s amazing to me that we Christians have to defend the Bible to a group who get all bent out of shape when we say they aren’t Christians. Hmmm interesting. All one has to do is look at the book of abraham and compare that to the scrolls Joseph “translated” and it’s plain to see he made it all up. That’s proof enough for me that he made up the book of Mormon too.
FoF said
Then you said And the Book of Mormon also predicted that Israel would be restored. It also predicted some amazing things about America that have come true and are coming true. Why dismiss it?
My question to you is/was
if you remove all the passages found in the BoM that are word for word quotes in the BoM, then after doing that, with whats left, how does it prove or show to me how I can get closer to Jesus or how I go about being saved.
Now I would like to add this, First off, I as well as many others believe the BoM has plagurism issues in it, I understand Mormons dont believe this, But you really mean to tell me that when JS translated the Bible from Reformed egyption, that the reformed egyptian somehow had Bible quotes that came trhough in KJ English? But all other words did not?
So if you remove all verses from the BoM that are found in the Bible, and I say this because, if they are already in the Bible, then why do I need them in the BoM. So once those are removed, then you remove things like, The BoM claims Isreal will come back into it’s land, we dont need verses like these since they again are in the Bible and this is not telling me something new that I dont know. Plus one could argue that if the BoM teaches Isreal will come back into it’s land, and the Bible all ready did this then it is a form of Plagrism.
So now with whats left, prove to me that I can find Jesus and salvation and in a greater clarity than taught in the Bible.
As a side issue to my other question you said,
Fine, but thats not answering my question. I want an atheist who purpossly set out to prove the BoM wrong, read the BoM and found the evidence to be so over whelming that he had no choice but to believe. Then he set out to share this with the world by writing a book and sharing all this info with people.
@Faithoffathers
“RikkiJ- your 3 reasons for believing the Bible are all different versions of the idea that the book is very old. In 2,000 years, should people accept the Book of Mormon because it is old?”
Actually, this is not what I said. What I said was this:
1. Used in history over different continents, languages, cultures, races
2. Translated into different languages by different religious groups
3. Consistent in content/meaning over 2000-4000 years
Without textual criticism or the existence of the original autographs, we simply can determine that the Bible is false. But since we do have textual criticism, we can know that it was accepted by the early church, carried over different languages, cultures, races and religious groups despite the original autographs being indisposed.
There’s strong historical evidence that many tribes, languages and cultures used it. That it was old is of little consequence. That people actually used it is and that historically there have no changes in meaning/content is.
That the Book of Mormon wasn’t used is of utmost importance, as there’s no historical proof of any usage whatsoever. Whether or not the Book of Mormon is old is of little consequence.
Make sense? 🙂
FoF,
I said to you
I meant to say, My question to you is/was
if you remove all the passages found in the BoM that are word for word quotes in the Bible.
Now to go along with what Kate said, You guys are always crying that we claim your Not Christains, Why should we say your a christian? You guys dont allow RLDS, or FLDS to claim they are Mormon.
I have also said on this blog before, what if I found some LDS missionarys walking up to some persons house and I walked up as the person was opening the door and they said they were from the LDS church, and I said, well so am I. And then I bust out with, I’m a mormon also, I read the BoM, The D and C, The PEARL, The Bible, I have been to SLC, and sat in the Local LDS church services.
I sound like I could be Mormon on the surface, What if I do to you guys as you do to us, and use your words and not openly explaing the meanings? I tell these people, I believe in the Mormon God head, I believe in the atonment, I believe in Grace plus works, and kept going. Yet like you guys do to us, I never say what I really mean.
Example, I believe in Grace plus works, sounds Like something you guys would say, yet if I was honest I would say, I believe in Grace alone that saves, But I get to do good works. I believe in the Godhood, but if I was honest I would say, You believe in 3 seperate gods making up this godhood, I believe in 3 people in one form and call it the trinity, yet would not use that word around you guys. I could keep going, but you get the point.
You guys take are terms, say you believe what we believe, therefore your a christian, but whne pressed, or we flat out state, your churchs teaches this…
Then when your honest you admit that, you just make excuses like, it’s milk before meat. So If I did what I just said, would you allow me to say I am an LDS member, IE, A mormon?
If not then how is what I would be doing and differant than what you guys do? If you allow me to do that, then you would be the very first ever to publickly say I can do that and you have no issues with it, since all other lds here have stated I cannot do that and it is wrong. Funny how it is wrong for me to do the same exact thing you guys do.
FOF said,
That is an interesting reason for believing the Bible. In my experience, the Book of Mormon describes and predicts human nature far better than any other book in the world. Why dismiss it?
I say,
I dismiss the book of Mormon because after reading and researching it I have no evidence that it is from God and plenty that it is not.
besides that philosophically speaking the Mormon god is incapable of revealing anything infallibility to me so even if I found the book of Mormon to be inspired I could not trust what it says.
while we are on the topic
That a book agrees with what you think human nature is like seems to be the worst possible reason for thinking it was divine revelation. If I know nothing else I know that my opinions are often in error and that I am not God.
At a minimum I would expect that revelation for God would if not conform exactly to “my experience” in matters like that.
peace
FoF,
“- I appreciate your perspective. But it doesn’t seem apparent from what you provide in your testimony why you would dismiss the Book of Mormon while accepting the Bible.”
I thought it was pretty clear that I must judge the Book of Mormon’s validity and all claims made by Mormon prophets by using the Bible as my guide. The Bible was here first and all things spiritual should be tested by it.
Other than the complete lack of any historical, scientific, archeological validation…Mormonism teaches a different gospel, plain and simple. when I left the LDS Church, I searched and searched and searched for evidence of Mormonism ever existing. It never has. The early church fathers never taught it. I can’t find any apostasy. To believe Mormonism I would have to believe that God purposely took His Church off the earth and within only a couple hundred years, just so someone else could come save me. The restoration creates a situation where humanity is lost once again. Christ had no power to save because there was no authority, no temple ordinances. Humanity needed to be “saved” once again. Jesus as God Incarnate was the only person that could save us. But now according to Mormonism we need Joseph Smith to save us too. I don’t believe there was an universal apostasy. I have no reason to believe that. I believe the Holy Spirit was given to the Church at Pentacost and it has been with the Church ever since. When I study Christian history I see Christ’s gospel being faithfully preserved. Mormonism also has an incredible weak foundation. The sketchiness of its early history is astonishing. I read the Early Church fathers at the same time as reading the Journal of Discourses, many things said by early LDS leaders were astoundingly appalling. But I didn’t have that problem with early Christian leaders. Not to mention it can be clearly shown that the Book of Mormon is fiction from Joseph Smith absorbing material that was all around him. I could seriously go on and on. Way too may problems with the Book of Mormon, its founder, and the early history. If I became a Mormon again (which would never happen), I’d be more inclined to join the Community of Christ.
But they say that people who use it like you do are wrong, and don’t know how to read. Just saying.
I’ll be getting to that. I already told you I would. Have patience. There is a lot of material to cover. You WILL be giving me my claim that you are wrong about the Urim and Thummim too. Especially when every single Mormon Apologist who has brought up Van Damm has misused his quotes, by omission and context. It doesn’t matter what Cowdery said. It matters what EVERYONE said. There are too many people that were there at the time that discredit Cowdery’s words. And since you believe Cowdery in that instance, do you believe him when he called Jo an adulterer who had “a nasty filthy affair” with Fanny Alger? The evidence proves YOU wrong. He called the peepstone “Nephite Interpreters” in the same way that they called the peepstone a “urim and thummim”. The quotes back this up. You have quoted NO ONE but Cowdery, who was called a liar by Jo himself.
Here is one example of how Kerry Shirts misuses Van Damn:
But if we go to the Book, we read,
Shirts tries to make it seem that Van Damn was saying that it was OK for Jo to use a type of UT, when according to Van Damn, it wasn’t. Yahweh weaned them off of it, and on the reliance of Prophets. (Which led to Christ and so we were weaned off of them and on to the Spirit) If Jo was a prophet, you have to ask, then why would he need a UT? He wouldn’t. If the process was, use a peepstone, or UT to learn how to communicate with God, then God would have kept the UT for ALL the NEW prophets that came along. No, he didn’t. He cut them off from it.
And there is all kinds of things wrong with the word interpreters and Teraphim, that the Momron Apologists don’t bring up. And the guidelines in Deuteronomy are the EXACT ones that Christians use to very good purpose against the claims of Smith, who gave many false prophecies. I have much more coming.
FoF,
many people have stated why they dont believe in the BoM and the lack of evidence for it, be it lack of History or otherwise.
But let me point out ONE of many reasons why I dont believe in the BoM.
Below is a story found in the BoM, the book of Ether. We read in the story about How God spoke to Jared and Commended him to make boats (Barges). I want to focus on some problems with How God told Jared to make these barges, and focus on the problems with the barges them selves. First lets read the story.
The book of Ether chapter 2
16 And the Lord said: Go to work and build, after the manner of barges which ye have hitherto built. And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did go to work, and also his brethren, and built barges after the manner which they had built, according to the instructions of the Lord. And they were small, and they were light upon the water, even like unto the lightness of a fowl upon the water.
17 And they were built after a manner that they were exceedingly tight, even that they would hold water like unto a dish; and the bottom thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the sides thereof were tight like unto a dish; and the ends thereof were peaked; and the top thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the length thereof was the length of a tree; and the door thereof, when it was shut, was tight like unto a dish.
18 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared cried unto the Lord, saying: O Lord, I have performed the work which thou hast commanded me, and I have made the barges according as thou hast directed me.
19 And behold, O Lord, in them there is no light; whither shall we steer? And also we shall perish, for in them we cannot breathe, save it is the air which is in them; therefore we shall perish.
20 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: Behold, thou shalt make a hole in the top, and also in the bottom; and when thou shalt suffer for air thou shalt unstop the hole and receive air. And if it be so that the water come in upon thee, behold, ye shall stop the hole, that ye may not perish in the flood.
21 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did so, according as the Lord had commanded.
22 And he cried again unto the Lord saying: O Lord, behold I have done even as thou hast commanded me; and I have prepared the vessels for my people, and behold there is no light in them. Behold, O Lord, wilt thou suffer that we shall cross this great water in darkness?
23 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels? For behold, ye cannot have windows, for they will be dashed in pieces; neither shall ye take fire with you, for ye shall not go by the light of fire.
24 For behold, ye shall be as a whale in the midst of the sea; for the mountain waves shall dash upon you. Nevertheless, I will bring you up again out of the depths of the sea; for the winds have gone forth out of my mouth, and also the drains and the floods have I sent forth.
25 And behold, I prepare you against these things; for ye cannot cross this great deep save I prepare you against the waves of the sea, and the winds which have gone forth, and the floods which shall come. Therefore what will ye that I should prepare for you that ye may have light when ye are swallowed up in the depths of the sea?
Now lets read the account in the Bible about Noah and the ark he was told to build.
14 Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch.
15 And this is how you shall make it: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.
16 You shall make a window for the ark, and you shall finish it to a cubit from above; and set the door of the ark in its side. You shall make it with lower, second, and third decks.
17 And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.
18 But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark–you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.
19 And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.
20 Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.
21 And you shall take for yourself of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to yourself; and it shall be food for you and for them.”
22 Thus Noah did; according to all that God commanded him, so he did.
Cont.
Cont,
In the Bible, when we read the account Given to Noah by God on how to build the ark, we find great detail, How many floors, the lenght of the ark, the kind of wood used, It HAS A WINDOW, a food supply Etc.
It would appear in the Book of Mormon, God is not as smart as in the Bible. First off, According to the BoM, in Ether 3:1 we read, Jared and his crew were told to make EIGHT BOATS, 1 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared, (now the number of the vessels which had been prepared was eight).
First off, for me, I would ask the simple question of, Why not just make one big barge that could fit everyone. I thought families were forever? If they are, why would it be so hard to keep a few people in one boat.
The Account given in the BoM we read, that Jared showed lack of faith by saying to the Lord, we wont be able to breath because of lack of air. We wont be able to see because of no light and we cannot steer.
I read in the Bible, God supplied Food, God never told noah to steer the Ark, We can assume God guided it and protected the ark, We read in the Bible, that there were great upheavals because of earthquakes and great destruction upon the earth, it was more than just rain falling for 40 days. God clearly protected Noah, why not Jared and his family?
Why is it, the Plans for Noah’s ark were not the same for Jared’s? The thing that really gets me, and in my mind, portrays the mormon god as being Stupid, is the issue of, We have no Air in the barge’s. So God tells Jared, put a hole in the Top of the barge and the Bottom of the barge, Then put plugs in the holes. When you need air, pull out a plug to receive air.
Lets examine just how crazy this really appears. This defy’s logic, yet many people sadly believe this and except this as Gods Holy Word. It would stand to reason, if your standing up on the Floor, and you look down and see a plug, you won’t want to pull it, because it would make sense the bottom of the barge is in the water. So you would want to pull the top one, But we read in verse 20, that if you pull the plug and water comes in, put the plug back in so the barge won’t fill with water and sink.
If you pull the top plug, and water comes in then this would imply, your completely under water, If you need a plug on the bottom and the top, this implies you are being tossed all around, this would mean also you turn completely over, this means you did a 180 degree turn. Just imagine if you did that a few times, People would be seriously hurt. You cannot roll over in a car many times and never get a scratch. If God really did say, put a plug in the top and bottom, it shows He knew you would be rolling over, If God really did say, if you pull the plug and water comes in, then put the plug back in to stop the water, this means He knew you would be under water.
This tells me, God is not a loving God to allow this or he simply is not very smart. Then if your running out of air to breath, and only water comes in, then as the water fills the barge, even if it is only a foot or two of water, then this means, there is even less air to breath. If you needed the air to breath, and you pull the plug to obtain more air, then this means your running dangerously low, If only water comes in, then the odds of you dying from lack of air are increased greatly.
Then it adds the problem of, if you let in water one to many times, you simply will sink under water due to the water aboard the Barge. It also begs the question of, If the Barges are as light as a fowl upon the water, I don’t recall ever once hearing about any birds, ducks or any other types of water fowl, simply just sinking into the water. So why did or do the barges go under water even for just a few minutes?
Now in verse 23, The lord tells jared You cannot have a window, lest it gets dashed to pieces. Well then why did Noah’s ark have a window? Did God not understand this whole idea of windows on the ark breaking? As near as I can tell, The ark’s window was noting more than a hole cut out with a board covering it, then they simply lift the board and the let the dove out or later the raven out. God told Jared, he could not have Fire on board. Well this fire would only burn up the air supply, this would cause them to pull the plug out more often, resulting in greater destruction of the barge. The other problem with the lack of air, is without air you will pass out never to wake up again.
Last but not least, we read in verse 24-25, God seems to understand that they will go under the water, And God states He will take care of them. Well if he can take care of them, why does He give lousy barge plans, and appear to be so stupid. Just my thoughts. Rick b
FoF,
You said, “you seem to be changing the subject. The point to which I responded was about prophetic power.”
If you would have actually read the PDF I provided then you would have seen that the second article is entitled “Pre- vs. Post-1830 Prophetic Accuracy”, which directly addressed your claim and Rick B’s rebuttal. You would have noticed that I wasn’t chnging the subject, you were just being lazy or hoping no one else read or even glanced at it.
Then you said, “And the Book of Mormon has a very good track record. By the way- your last statement is just uninformed or misleading.”
That last statement I said was, “not one single vestige of any BoM civilization has been pinpointed in either time or space after their departure from the Old World.” What I said was spot on and your response was pathetic at best. The best thing is that the silent investigators here are all seeing the futility of your arguments.
Mistaken Testimony you said to FoF
What is really sad is, a hard core TBM who posted on here all the time in days past, was honest enough to say on this site to me and Falcon, I dont dont bother reading everything you guys post.
So it is of no realy surprise to me that FoF did not or does not read everything any of us post.
@jaxi
I was hoping you could share your perspective with me on a certain topic. Feel free to contact Rick B., he has my email.
@Faithoffathers
And the Book of Mormon also predicted that Israel would be restored.
Presumably, you’re talking about this passage:
“Wherefore, after they are driven to and fro, for thus saith the angel, many shall be afflicted in the flesh, and shall not be suffered to perish, because of the prayers of the faithful; they shall be scattered, and smitten, and hated; nevertheless, the Lord will be merciful unto them, that when they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer, they shall be gathered together again to the lands of their inheritance/.” (2 Nephi 6:11)
The returning of Israel to their lands is based on one premise:
that when they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer…/
1. If you believe that they have come to the knowledge of their Redeemer, then they did that at the time of Jesus, many in Israel believe in Jesus. However, the nation as a whole didn’t, and thereafter in AD 70, the temple was destroyed and the Israeli/Jewish scattering across nations began rather than ended.
2. If you believe that they have now come to a knowledge of the Redeemer in 1947/48, then there’s no evidence of that. Israel as a majority does not accept Jesus Christ as being the Redeemer.
Therefore, this conditional prophecy didn’t come to pass. Whereas, when we look at Biblical prophecy regarding the nation of Israel:
A. The dispersing of the nation of Israel: “For you will spread abroad to the right and to the left, and your offspring will possess the nations and will people the desolate cities.” (Isaiah 54:3, ESV)
B. The return of the nation (not dependant on repentance) from all other countries: “Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when they shall no longer say, ‘As the Lord lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt,’ but ‘As the Lord lives who brought up and led the offspring of the house of Israel out of the north country and out of all the countries where he had driven them.’ Then they shall dwell in their own land.” (Jeremiah 23:7-8, ESV)
Therefore, in comparison, the BoM prophecy didn’t come to pass whereas the Biblical one did.
One of the major problems with Mormonism is that it has no authority in the spiritual realm. In that realm, Jesus reigns. If someone does not have Jesus, they do not have any authority structure under which to operate. Jesus is not only God incarnate, but He is the King and our High Priest. He made sacrifice for sins and sat down at the right hand of the Father as it says in the Book of Hebrews.
Mormonism has a fake authority structure, with it’s priesthood, apostles and prophets that only has authority, power and influence within the structure of the false religion of Mormonism. Outside of that structure, especially in the spirit realm, Mormonism is a dud. It’s like a firecracker that doesn’t go off.
Coming to the Lord Jesus Christ in faith, gives the believer access to the authority structure of the King. By being born again by the Spirit of God, the believer can call upon the power that is inherent in the name of Jesus.
Mormonism is a false religion with no authority, no power and therefore those who are entangled in it, have no hope.
Really? According to who? I love this line of thought. Mormons are always crowing about how “easy to understand” the so called prophecies in the Book of Mormon are. In fact, one of Jo’s chosen Apostles did so and gave examples. He used his “prophetic authority” as an Apostle, “a prophet, seer, & revelator” (so ordained) to tell us all about how the Book of Mormon was so accurate in it’s prophecy about the coming doom of America. It seems that a man named La Roy Sunderland didn’t believe it, so Parley P. Pratt in 1838 wrote a detailed reply to him, called “Mormonism Unveiled“, based on all the “revelations” of Jo Smith. Here is what Pratt wrote:
Notice that Pratt specifically says that he rejects all those whose “predictions were unscriptural, and did not come to pass”. This is important, because of what Pratt says next:
Gee, it seems that Pratt is saying that the Mormons don’t make mistakes. They don’t have error, or opinion when it comes to prophecy because they have the “Holy Ghost”. This is the very claim that I make all the time. But not the Mormons today, nope, not at all. Their leaders made all kinds of mistakes. They only spoke as men and gave opinion and taught “folklore”. Not according to Pratt they didn’t. But this gets better, because he starts talking about the Book of Mormon.
The remnant of Jacob here, of course is the “Lamanites” or American Indians, and we all know how that turned out. They DIDN’T rise up against the Gentiles, overcome them and then help “build” the New Jerusalem. They never will. Put that down as a prophecy. Pratt though, wasn’t kidding. He said it would all be destroyed, the entire American Government and every Gentile that lived in the Americas. He goes on to then prophecy that this is so, and he sets the time for it:
Here Pratt gives a date for the destruction of America, telling us (because he is a “prophet, seer & revelator” is he not?) that it would be destroyed (or all the “unbelieving Gentiles will be anyway, and that includes all those “abominable Christians” who reject the BOM) within 50 years of 1838, which would be around 1888, OR THE BOOK OF MORMON WAS FALSE. Also, they were not “greatly scourged” and “overthrown” before 1848 (ten years after this “prophecy”). America survived it’s Civil War, which Mormon “prophets” said would commence the downfall of it’s Government.
Well, we all know that. I don’t see how any Mormon can still believe in that Book when one of those who were called to be “special witnesses” of Jesus Christ, was deemed “faithful to the end” by the church for almost 200 years now, and supposedly had the Holy Spirit of God, and was clearly exercising his right as an “Apostle” of Jesus Christ to prophecy, was so wrong. If he was, they all are. What makes this even worse was that La Roy Sunderland lived to be an old man, outlived Parley Pratt by many years and was never “stricken dumb”. You see, Pratt thought that he was one of those characters in the Book of Mormon that could do all that stuff. But even though life may imitate fiction, it didn’t imitate THAT FICTION. The America that the Mormon “prophets” foresaw, NEVER CAME TO PASS. We are greater than they could have ever imagined. Instead, America around 1890 stripped the Mormon church of it’s property and made it obey the law, even though Wilford Woodruff and John Taylor and Brigham Young prophesied that this would NEVER happen. They then embraced this country like they loved it from the start, when they always hated it, because those in power never bought into their lies.
Parley makes himself perfectly clear and goes on and on about how great and simple and clear the Book of Mormon is. Now let’s see what the Mormons say about this. Let’s watch them throw Parley under the bus. This folks, is why Mormon “apostles and prophets” don’t prophecy anymore. This is why they don’t predict the future. They can’t. This is a classic example of how Mormonism works. Parley P. Pratt proved that the Book of Mormon is FALSE. Thank you Parley.
Then, Pratt goes on to denigrating Christians:
Notice that Pratt says that God the Father is Jehovah. (Which all Mormons taught at this time) And notice that he calls the Catholic Church “the mother of harlots” along with every other Christian denomination including the Methodists. He then says,
Receive the truth from a false prophet? Really? How can Mormonism be the truth, when it’s very prophets can’t even give a true prophesy? How can they say they don’t attack other churches? It’s all right there. Pratt even says that his God mocks the Christian God, and that they don’t worship the same God. See how Pratt has to limit God to a man? That God can’t communicate if he doesn’t have a human mouth? How does the Holy Spirit work then, Mr. Pratt? Does it “talk” to every Mormon? Or is the Holy Spirit not God because he doesn’t have a human mouth to speak with? Does he need to have eyes to see? Is God watching with only his eyes everything going on or he doesn’t see it?
And about the Book of Mormon predicting “amazing” things for America. So did lots of people, some who weren’t even religious. Here are just two who did so: Thomas Jefferson said,
John Adams said,
No Mormon “prophecy” is equal to the words of John Adams, right there in black and white. That was EXACTLY what happened and he didn’t need the Mormon “priesthood” to do it.
I am a bit hesitant to chime in on a conversation that is as long and varied as this because, frankly, I haven’t carefully read every post. But I hope what I have to say adds something valuable to the discussion.
One aspect of the discussion touches on how we know spiritual truth. When I was LDS, I definitely had what I consider religious experiences. They happened. Someone has already raised the issue of the source of such spiritual experiences. It’s enough for me to say that I trusted those experiences came from the Holy Spirit because they were validated all the time during my Mormon experience in fast and testimony meetings, on my mission, through my association with fellow church (ward and stake level) leaders. They reported the same kind of experiences, so I trusted that mine were valid and from God.
My sense of what I call dis-ease with Mormonism started in 1998. I was not sinning in a major way–I wasn’t hiding some dark secret. I was paying tithing, attending the temple, fulfilling my calling at the time as a high councilor. I was not reading about LDS history or other controversies. I was just stirred up inside, and it was awful and very confusing.
By 2003 I quit participating. I put it that way because I didn’t just drift off into inactivity and disbelief. I can pinpoint the day and the reason further participation became psychologically impossible. That was also the time I started reading the New Testament by itself and for itself. I also read some about how we got the New Testament. That has also been touched on in this discussion.
As a Mormon I had very real inner-being (spiritual) experiences that I trusted because they were exactly like those of my fellow saints. I experienced it, they experienced it, therefore I firmly believed I could trust they were witnesses to the truth of LDS faith claims. During my period of dis-ease, however, something just wasn’t right and I assumed it had to be me. I prayed, templed, tithed, magnified harder than ever to shake the dis-ease. If anything, all that doing just made it worse.
As I got into the New Testament and the Bible in general, I saw that the sources from which we get the Bible are reliable. Reliable just means they are genuinely ancient. Furthermore, the Bible quite accurately describes the setting of the stories well. There may be anachronisms here and there, but the description of first century Palestine matches reality. The Biblical setting for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph match the time they took place well. Furthermore, there can be little dispute that the New Testament is a genuine first century document. Its provenance is well established.
None of these things make the Bible’s faith claims true–these things just make them possible. The map matches the territory, so to speak. The Book of Mormon has huge problems in this area, which the Bible simply does not have.
Now to my point. (finally). As a dis-eased, active, believing, striving Mormon I began feeling what I call the oppression of a testimony. Since I had had inner religious experiences that seemed to validate Mormon faith claims (I have felt the burning in the bosom about Joseph Smith, the Doctrine and Covenants, and I have experienced immediate healing after a priesthood blessing), and since I believed these things came from the Holy Ghost, I was under obligation to also believe all that Mormonism claims to be. I was further stirred up inside by the fact that, in that time period, I also observed a huge de-emphasis of many unique and identifying LDS beliefs. So, from the get-go, one can’t believe Joseph Smith was a prophet based on some inner religious experience without further believing in the Book of Mormon. If he truly was a prophet, all that follows must also be true. As Stephen Covey used to say, if you pick up one end of a stick, you pick up the other end as well.
As I gained confidence in the Bible I was faced simply with a choice. I could choose to place the Bible and the God of the Bible as the object of my faith–or not. If God has given us any sovereignty, it is in our ability to choose. I never have felt that choosing to place God and his word as the object of my faith was a work, it was a choice. I wasn’t obligated to do it. It was a totally free decision. I didn’t have to buy into the whole Christian thing, especially since I didn’t know what the “whole thing” was. I merely had to choose to place God as the object of my faith. I was not obligated to accept anything, I was not obligated to go along with anything, I was not obligated to do anything. From childhood my Mormon experience informed me that I was pretty much obligated to a lot of things from paying tithing to putting up chairs at stake conference based solely on my inner religious experiences.
Again, that’s why I can and do say I chose Jesus over Joseph and the Bible over the Book of Mormon. The evidence supports the Bible so as to allow its faith claims to be true. The Book of Mormon’s (lack of) evidence heavily reinforces that it could not possibly be true. And I have found that this same line of reasoning holds so very true of nearly every department of LDS faith claims. There are problems all over the place which are very difficult to overcome. My Christian walk has been easy. I merely had a choice to make, and that choice has made all the difference in the world.
Rick,
That is why I seldom tell Mormons to go and read something for themselves. I post the quotes (as much as I can). Then, they complain about that, as you have seen. For them, it’s hands on their ears while chanting “la, la, la, la, la” all day long. Nothing works with some. Now, the great thing is, is that those quotes get read by others who KNOW that they can read and understand something with their own intellect. (Not “pseudo intellect”). Those that don’t want to believe won’t accept anything that contradicts their own preconceived notions of what the truth MUST be, or their whole religion comes apart. That is why they won’t believe (for example) that even though there were many people in the same house watching Jo and Oliver translate the Book of Mormon, and Jo was doing so by putting a stone in a hat, and everyone except one person says that this was the way it was, they will believe the one person that obviously had an agenda to lie about it. Their own “prophet of the restoration” can even call that person a liar, and it doesn’t phase them, because of course he didn’t lie then, only when he was calling out their “prophet” who could do no wrong. (Except when he says things they don’t agree with, then he’s “human” and has “weaknesses”.) Dan Vogel has an interesting tag line that he uses on the Mormon Discussions board that encapsulates this notion. It is a Joseph Smith quote that reads,
Yet, he said,
This quote (above) was quoted by Boyd Packer who also said,
This goes for every other Mormon “prophet”. But Mormons want to have it both ways. They try and convey now that they were only “men” or had “weakness” when they were “revelating”, (hence the errors and “folklore”) when this is absolutely not the context of what they meant. They have always claimed that the church is infallible, (led by Christ) that their prophets are infallible (in their leadership roles led by Christ) or they would be “taken” by the Lord. But just try quoting them their own actual history and you get the Mormon Bubble experience. Nothing can penetrate it. But that is only for some. For others, there is hope – and that is what I build my life and testimony on, the hope in Jesus and His Word, the Bible.
Rick B,
RikkiJ says to contact through you. I don’t know how to contact you. Do you have an email listed somewhere?
Tom,
Thank you for that last post you shared. I can relate in a lot of ways.
Grindael,
I agree, the LDS dont and do not want to read stuff for they will see the truth and they cannot handle it.
But like you I do still post stuff knowing the lurkers will read it. I have told some people off line, like Falcon and Rikki, I post stuff knowing they wont read it, but If it was just a private email between me and the Mormon, I would be done talking long ago.
Jaxi, I have no problem posting my email on line for everyone to see, I posted it many times but it is somewhere far back, so here it is.
[email protected]
@Tom
I’d be happy to see any anachronisms that haven’t been sorted out by modern textual criticism or studies of early manuscripts.
Example:
(1 Chronicles 29:7, NASB) “They gave for the service of the house of God 5,000 talents and 10,000 darics of gold, 10,000 talents of silver, 18,000 talents of bronze and 100,000 talents of iron.”
The Hebrew word is: וַאֲדַרְכֹנִ֣ים or otherwise transliterated “wa-a-dar-konim”
The actual word separated from the prepositions, adjectives, plural form and/or genuine article is ‘adarkon’ not daric.
“Daric” is a transposition that some translations use. As I said previously, a careful study of supposed anachronisms may resolve supposed anachronisms.